Author |
Message |
Kieran Wardale
Location: Virginia Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 9
|
Posted: Mon 01 Apr, 2013 12:58 pm Post subject: Is the vanguard from chivalry medieval warfare accurate? |
|
|
My question is what time period does the vanguard originate. It appears as though it's form about the early to mid 14th century but there are some parts like the upper arm armor and the gloves that leave me to question it's accuracy in respect to that time period.
Attachment: 55.09 KB
Attachment: 35.51 KB
Attachment: 10.99 KB
A man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth deserves to have it permanently shut.
Boyd Crowder
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
Posted: Mon 01 Apr, 2013 2:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The barrel helmet is late 13th century.
The ailettes are early 13th century and should be on the shoulders, not the upper arms.
The splint bracers are early 14th century.
The surcoat is 12th-13th century.
The pants don't look medieval at all.
Wearing a pollaxe strapped to the back is a 20th century fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Michael Parker
|
Posted: Mon 01 Apr, 2013 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
My opinions concerning "Chivalry: Medieval Warfare" are that the hand-to-hand combat system is better than most video games that have a melee attack in first person. Most games do not really go into the timing aspect of fencing, with parries having to be executed at the right moment and attacks requiring commitment and stamina to execute, and feints being an option. That I do commend because it is executed well. At the same time really silly things, like knights using two-handed weapons in one hand and carrying the heaviest shields, even though they have the heaviest armor, just irk me. It is one thing to be anachronistic or fantastic, but it is another to just violate common sense. When you have a game that imitates realism then the inaccuracies are harder for me to accept. The melee combat system is a concept that should be experimented with more, but I guess when you're a historical stickler your enjoyment of video games can be a casualty.
By the way Dan, I thought that Ailettes were mainly used between 1290 and 1325. Is that faulty information?
"This is a sharp medicine, but it is a physician for all diseases and miseries."
-Sir Walter Raleigh, upon being allowed to see the ax that would behead him, 29 October 1618
|
|
|
|
Dan Howard
|
Posted: Mon 01 Apr, 2013 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nope. I meant early 1300's (early 14th C)
|
|
|
|
Peter Anderson
Location: Holland, USA Joined: 22 Mar 2013
Posts: 38
|
Posted: Mon 01 Apr, 2013 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Chivalry is a fictional setting, merely derived from historical research. So accuracy is kind of a moot point.
However, their inspirations are clearly drawn from historical sources; along those lines I would agree with Dan's assessment. The overall look strikes me as a generally 13th century style, abstracted.
|
|
|
|
Kieran Wardale
Location: Virginia Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 9
|
Posted: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 3:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the clarification everyone
A man who speaks out of both sides of his mouth deserves to have it permanently shut.
Boyd Crowder
|
|
|
|
Jojo Zerach
|
Posted: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 5:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Michael, remember the game is in a low level fantasy setting, so you can't be critical of things like that.
Even so, most of the equipment in the game looks historical, it's just mixed and matched all around.
The Vanguards gauntlets and vambraces are early 14th century in style, while the rest of him is more 13th century.
|
|
|
|
William P
|
Posted: Tue 02 Apr, 2013 10:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the game 'war of the roses has a much greater level of historical detail in terms of armour and weapon types and designs and all that, but chivalry does look like it has a better combat system.
from what Ive seen most of the weapons dont really violate common sense rules of weapon design. except the whole carrying polarms on the back, thing.
most of the weapons look like i could plausibly see them in a museum somewhere.
|
|
|
|
Johan Gemvik
|
Posted: Fri 05 Apr, 2013 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I adore fantasy, but never liked how it tends to favor impractical armour and weapon use. Nor do I believe just because something is fantasy that you have to mix equipment and armour from various ages.
It would be perfectly viable to have a clear cut 13th or 14th century world -but with magic, dragons and the odd artifact or two. How refreshing that would be!
As it is I often wonder if mixing it up is for proper reasons (story driving with dimensions and ages merging by arcane means, or as a deliberate inside joke) or the creator just being lazy with the reaearch. Sadly I strongly believe it's almost always the latter.
"The Dwarf sees farther than the Giant when he has the giant's shoulder to mount on" -Coleridge
|
|
|
|
Benjamin H. Abbott
|
Posted: Fri 05 Apr, 2013 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
There's considerable evidence equipment was at times used decades or centuries after its manufacture, so kits we might call temporally mismatched historically appeared on the battlefield. Some English nobles in the sixteenth century allegedly mustered with armor that made amused Spanish soldiers think they'd stepped out of a medieval manuscript. Additionally, older styles persisted longer in certain region than in others, with Ireland being a striking example. In the late sixteenth century, you had English pike-&-shot armies facing Irish heavy infantry in high helms and hauberks wielding long-handled axes. I don't know any specific recorded instances, but it's quite probable that soldiers in Anglo-Irish borderlands would have worn mixed gear.
|
|
|
|
|